from the 'I-find-working-in-public-service-to-be-[self]-gratifying' dept

I'll never understand the mentality of an employee -- government or otherwise -- who watches porn while on the clock and on company computers. I get that the mind wanders when not otherwise occupied, but rather than surf the web for innocuous time-killers, certain people decide to just head off the deep end and view something that's forbidden in every work environment not actively engaged in the production or distribution of porn.

While I may have skirted policies meant to keep time-wasting to a minimum (some days were filled with only wasted time), I have never opted to go the porn route. I have nothing against porn or those who watch it. I would just rather not give my employers (a) the equivalent of the middle finger re: computer use policies and (b) any insight into my personal sexual preferences. (LET YOUR IMAGINATIONS RUN WILD.) Both of these seem like BAD THINGS to do.

(Also, there's that whole thing about it that insinuates some sort of self-pleasure is involved, and in a work environment, that's just… amazingly gross. Even the employees at the porn shop don't relish cleaning up the spank rooms. Imagine being told after a few weeks at work that your predecessor [and previous cubicle occupant] was fired for watching tons of porn during work hours. You'd want to shower in decontaminant and return in a hazmat suit.)

Inspector General Rob Pearre Jr. released a report last week revealing the employee, a maintenance supervisor at the facilities division of the Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant, was suspended in September 2014 and fired Jan. 20 at the conclusion of an investigation.

The report said officials received an anonymous complaint about the worker in August of last year and monitoring software installed on the man's work computer found he spent 39 of the 82 hours he spent working in a two-week period watching a pornographic DVD on the computer.

Nothing handles the ridiculousness of a porn-related firing more aptly than an official report so dry it could apply for disaster relief funds.

"HOW MUCH PORN DID HE WATCH?" the studio audience in my mind demands. Here's a per-shift breakdown, listed in this report as "Table 1."

It appears the employee's workload tended to diminish over the course of week, with Mondays and Tuesdays (with one exception -- a seven-of-eight work hours marathon) being relatively light and the ration of porn-to-work increasing as the week wore on. Fridays were half-days and, accordingly, roughly half of that time was given over to porn-watching.

Now, the employee obviously felt accessing porn via the internet might result in a swift dismissal. His workaround -- bringing a DVD from home -- allowed him to bypass web filters. However, the length of time it was watched, combined with how it was watched, gives the impression that no one really checked on this employee's productivity, much less ever stopped by his desk.

The City-owned computer operated by the MSI was connected to a single monitor. OIG personnel noted that when pornographic material was visible, the video was maximized to cover the entire screen.

Full-screen porn during work hours is a strong indicator that the employee was neither valued nor popular. Viewing porn in full screen can only be done by those confident their porn sessions will not be interrupted.

The Inspector's report then goes on to state the (inadvertently hilarious) obvious.

OIG personnel noted that minimal computer activity was performed while pornographic material was visible. Based on these findings, the OIG believes that little to no work was being performed during the time that pornographic material was visible on the screen of the MSI’s City-owned computer.

Doh! If only this employee would have reduced it to the upper-corner of the monitor and run a few work-related applications in the background. He might have been able to hold onto this job until retirement -- at which point his porn-watching could have resumed uninterrupted, barring the occasional trip to the bank to deposit his pension check. (Or not, what with direct deposit…) But he didn't. Instead, he did this.

OIG personnel noted that the MSI would occasionally maximize his email inbox in the Microsoft Outlook program and then minimize it moments later leaving only the pornographic material visible on the screen.

Fortunately for Baltimore taxpayers, there's no pension in the future nor the continued annual funding of Dept. of Public Works porn-watching. $30,000/year for twiddling your thumbs self is damn good money, but there aren't many entities willing to fork that out. (Barring, of course, those involved in the production/distribution of porn…)

At an hourly rate of $29.90, the MSI was paid $1,166 for 39 hours for which no work was performed. By annualizing the data gathered during the two-week monitoring based on a 2000 hour work-year, pornographic material would be visible on the screen of the MSI’s City-owned computer for 951 hours which would cost the City approximately $28,400.

Also noted in the report: the employee appealed his pending termination briefly before being persuaded to take a 10-day payout in exchange for dropping the appeal he had very little chance of winning.

The report wraps up with the DPW and OIG giving each other big, warm hugs for being so competent/cooperative (respectively). And for the moment, all is slightly more right in Baltimore's Dept. of Public Works.

Speaking to the BBC, Zimbardo said his research has uncovered something in those boys who are online up to 15 hours a day.

He described boys' altered brain function like this: "When I'm in class, I'll wish I was playing World of Warcraft. When I'm with a girl, I'll wish I was watching pornography, because I'll never get rejected."

He says that such a mindset has been created because of the Web's existence and the proliferation of particular entertainment sources on it.

While Zimbardo's research would seem to be focused only on the extreme end of the human spectrum, he seems to think it applies to those who don't engage in these activities at public servant/South Korean levels of engagement.

Zimbardo defines excessive porning and video gaming as more than five hours a day.

And already the scale has shifted massively. (Also: "porning?") Now, it includes those who spend a quarter of the day engaged in some form of popular entertainment. He thinks it's killing off more than males' social drive. It's also killing their sex drive.

And here we are at another area of sketchy research, most often touted by those with goods and services to sell. Unsurprisingly, Zimbardo has recently published a book dealing with these very issues.

Presumably because the evidence doesn't match the assertions, Zimbardo's claims as to how many hours are too many continues to shift, all within the space of a six-minute interview.

[H[e regards the addiction and the rewiring of the brain as being a factor of not merely the number of hours, but the obvious changes in mindset…

Now it's any length of time, provided the "mindset" is "changed." Zimbardo's discussion of these males paints gamers/porn watchers as socially-stunted introverts whose hobbies are only making them more unable to deal with the outside world. And all it takes is (up to) 5 hours a day.

He does admit there's an upside to gaming/porn watching. Criminal activity is on the wane and the amount of men drinking/using illicit drugs continues to fall. But even this upside is a downside. In Zimbardo's mind, the world would be better served by an increase in drunken, drug-addled men looking to raise hell and get laid.

However, Zimbardo said: "They're not violent because they're alone in their room."

He added that young men are drinking Coke instead of alcohol and becoming "fat-asses." The chances of type-2 diabetes are increased, he said, which tends to decrease libido.

Research by the Internet Advertising Bureau last year found that 52% of British gamers are women. This isn’t an isolated blip and it isn’t just down to “casual” phone games like Candy Crush Saga. In the US, research specialist Super Data found that just over 50% of PC gamers are women. Senior researcher Stephanie Llamas wrote about how her data challenged the cliche that women only play casual titles – her female subjects identified mostly as “mid-core” and hardcore players.

And his take on gaming is dated and -- dare I say it -- sexist. Zimbardo sees male gamers as translucent-skinned basement dwellers whose unblinking eyes are fixed on computer monitors and TV screens. It's as if he's never heard of social gaming. The games that routinely sell the most copies in any given year are heavily-focused on multiplayer interaction. Each iteration of the Call of Duty series is fine-tuned for online play. The single-player "experience" is usually a 4-6 hour afterthought that many purchasers completely ignore. The Grand Theft Auto series has made online multiplayer an option for the past couple of releases, and even included limited local multiplayer options back in the Playstation 2 days.

As for the porn claims, the verdict's still mostly out. While there are a number of psychologists who link porn-watching to erectile dysfunction, it's tenuous at best and purely correlative at worst. With porn easily available online, the number of people partaking has undoubtedly gone up. But have erectile dysfunction cases climbed at the same rate?

It's the same logic hole that trips up arguments that violent videogames result in violent crime. While there may be some negative effects in a few members of the population, one would expect the hundreds of millions of gamers who play violent videogames to have produced an appreciable spike in violent crime -- if we're to believe violent videogames lead to violent acts. But that simply hasn't happened. Granted, numbers on reported erectile problems are far harder to come by (pun not not intended but not totally intended) than crime stats and game sales figures, but if it were approaching the apparently epidemic level of porn intake, you'd think there would be a bit more credible reporting on the link between the two.

But perhaps more troubling than the male gamer cliches and the touting of questionable correlations is Zimbardo's other ideas -- ones that don't receive quite as much play in most of the coverage. Zimbardo seems to feel porn and games (and soda, I guess) are undercutting what it means to be male and producing an inferior iteration -- at least as compared to the manlier men of the past.

[W]hile girls are increasingly succeeding in the real world, boys are retreating into cyberspace, seeking online the security and validation they can’t get anywhere else. They are bored at school, increasingly have no father figures to motivate them, don’t have the skills to form real romantic relationships, feel entitled to have things done for them (usually by their parents) and seek to avoid a looming adulthood of debt, unfulfilling work and other irksome responsibilities. As a result, they disappear into their bedrooms where, he argues, they risk becoming addicted to porn, video games and Ritalin.

Zimbardo proposes a set of "fixes" that rely heavily on turning men into men by interfacing with other men -- presumably all in a very heterosexual way. (Zimbardo's research apparently didn't cover those who don't fall under the "straight" umbrella…)

Zimbardo has lots of suggestions: more male teachers, more incentives for men to establish boys’ and men’s groups so that the former can get the masculine mentoring they otherwise lack, welfare reform to encourage fathers to remain in the family loop, crowdsourcing initiatives to fund video games that are less violent and require more co-operation, parents to talk to their sons about sex and relationships so they don’t take porn to represent real life.

The suggestions improve as the list goes on, but Zimbardo seems to fear a world of feminized, antisocial fat-asses (he refers to today's male role models as "man poodles" or "infantilized jerks") who aren't going to find the masculinity they apparently need with one hand on a controller and the other on manual override.

Then there's this:

Zimbardo contends that immersion in online technology means that boys never learn basic social communication skills, still less how to flirt, risk rejection or ask for a date. As a result, boys are hobbled by a new form of social shyness.

But wouldn't this online technology also facilitate flirting, social communication and asking for dates? Social communication is changing, but Zimbardo still wants it to resemble the sort of thing he grew up with. And this perception of unsociable losers is mostly false, but it gets perpetuated every time some axe-grinding moral panicist or book-peddling psychologist takes an inadvertent shoulder from a teenager staring a cellphone, rather than where he or she is going.

If porn/videogames were really that destructive, the world would be a complete mess. Both are ubiquitous and enjoyed by millions of people around the world, by a wide range of ages. And yet, for the most part, life is still recognizable as life, even by those who've been around since the "better days" when people talked "face to face" and waited until the newspaper arrived in the morning to discover what had happened yesterday.

from the you-have-no-idea-how-this-works dept

The UK's attempts to filter the Internet of all of its naughty bits are nothing if not amusing, whether it's the nation's porn filter architect getting arrested for child porn, or the complete and total obliviousness when it comes to the slippery slope of expanding those filters to include a growing roster of ambiguously objectionable material. The idea of forcing some kind of overarching structure upon porn consumption in the UK is another idea that never seems to go away, whether it's requiring a "porn license" (requiring users to clearly opt in if they want to view porn) or the latest push -- mandatory age checks.

Seemingly unaware of the way the internet (or law, or the world itself) works, some UK lawmakers are now demanding that porn websites around the world include age verification systems, or face fines or closure. How exactly the UK government plans to enforce these restrictions upon a global pornography industry isn't explained. The only thing the UK is sure of is that these restrictions are absolutely necessary for the welfare of the country's tots:

"Providers who did not co-operate could also be fined. Mr Javid said: "If you want to buy a hardcore pornography DVD in a store you need to prove your age to the retailers. "With the shift to online, children can access adult content on websites without restriction, intentionally or otherwise. "That is why we need effective controls online that apply to UK and overseas. This is about giving children the best start in life."

Well intentioned, perhaps, but it's yet another example of people not realizing how the internet genie has left the bottle, and no amount of thrashing or cajoling is going to re-imprison the agitated djinn. The UK's latest push is being propped up by a flood of recent scary headlines across the UK proclaiming that the country has a porn addiction problem among around a tenth of the nation's 12- and 13-year-olds. In fairly typical media fashion, the stories proclaiming this fact don't really bother to dissect the claims or hunt down the survey's origins.

"It turns out the study was conducted by a "creative market research" group called OnePoll. "Generate content and news angles with a OnePoll PR survey, and secure exposure for your brand," reads the company's blurb. "Our PR survey team can help draft questions, find news angles, design infographics, write and distribute your story." The company is super popular on MoneySavingExpert.com, where users are encouraged to sign up and make a few quid. Here's what that website says: "Mega-popular for its speedy surveys, OnePoll runs polls for the press, meaning fun questions about celebs and your love life." So the company behind these stats about porn addiction are known for their quick and easy surveys and promise to generate headline-grabbing stats. An unusual choice, perhaps, for such a sensitive subject."

While the group behind the effort (Childline) appears well intentioned, there are surely better ways to protect children than by scaring politicians into a global charade of internet booby whac-a-mole. Like, with actual parenting perhaps. Paying attention to what your kids do online, and intelligently explaining sexuality to them before they run into age-inappropriate content would be worlds more effective than demanding the globe's pornography industry capitulate to the whims of the UK's ludditical legislators.

from the and-what's-wrong-with-simply-enforcing-existing-policies? dept

Rep. Mark Meadows on Wednesday introduced the Eliminating Pornography from Agencies Act, which he said would prevent government employees from taking their eyes off their work.

"Prevent" is a strong word, considering both the limitations of the nascent bill and federal employees' willingness to go above and beyond when it comes to porn-watching in the workplace. Meadows' statement on the bill points out one particular EPA employee who admitted to viewing porn up to 6 hours a day (indeed, he was watching porn when the Inspector General came knocking) and had accessed or downloaded more than 7,000 pornographic images.

It's not just the EPA. The SEC and FCC also employ their fair share of (apparently) professional porn enthusiasts. But what Meadows is demanding in his bill [pdf] is little more than a reiteration of existing policies.

Except as provided in subsection 9 (b), not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidelines that prohibit the access of a pornographic or other explicit web site from a Federal computer.

Subsection 9 (b) basically states "unless watching porn is your job" -- i.e., investigative work, etc. Given the amount of porn-watching occurring at federal agencies, it would seem that some new "Porn-Watcher Watcher" positions will be opening if Meadows' bill manages to snag a Presidential signature.

But the bill -- as proposed -- will have little to no effect on ardent federal porn fans. New guidelines, or even a new firewall (if that's the direction the OMB goes), won't stop those intent on whiling away their work hours in a permanent state of arousal. Firewalls can be circumvented and, unless the guidelines contain significant punishments for violating them, new policies will be equally useless.

It can safely be said that no current government policies allow for the accessing of porn with government computers, so we know the policy route is wholly ineffective. The addition of bolded print or ALL CAPS from the OMB isn't suddenly going to take the lead out of these government pencils. The longevity of the EPA's porn fan (both in terms of per-day consumption and continued employment) should be all the evidence needed to prove Meadows' bill useless -- something Meadows doesn't seem to have considered when writing his press release (or the bill itself).

I'm in full agreement that it shouldn't take a new law to prevent federal employees from abusing themselves and their equipment while on the clock. But it won't be fixed by a more-disappointed-than-angry press release and bill demanding new policies within 90 days of enactment. The government actually needs to take control of this situation by booting its bored and frisky employees out of their all-too-comfortable positions and hire people willing to treat federal employment with the same respect millions of private employees are expected to treat their jobs. Enforce the policies already on the books. The nation really doesn't need more laws.

An opening anecdote details the porn-fueled formative years of Gabe Deem -- now a youth counselor who runs "reboot" programs for other porn-addled teens. This recounting concludes with the following paragraph:

“Ultimately it desensitized me and rewired my brain to my computer screen to the point where, in real life, I couldn’t feel anything in an intimate situation,” he said in an interview. “My generation was told growing up that porn was cool because it was ‘sex positive.’ But what can be more ‘sex negative’ than being unable to perform in bed?”

Deem did what any concerned young adult would in his situation: he self-diagnosed.

He Googled his symptoms and found a name for the condition: Porn-induced erectile dysfunction.

[A] former corporate attorney with degrees from Brown and Yale who writes books about the unwelcome effects of evolutionary biology on intimate relationships and the striking parallels between recent scientific discoveries and traditional sacred-sex texts…

So, on one hand, we have a closed, self-sustaining ecosystem promoting the idea that porn use can create erectile dysfunction. On the other hand, we have actual psychology. This is McLaren's opening salvo, the one supposed to sway the uncertain onto her side of the issue -- and one that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

But it gets worse.

Porn-induced erectile dysfunction is now well documented by the mainstream medical community.

Dr. Oz devoted a show to the topic last year, and just a few months ago, researchers at Cambridge University found that porn addicts’ brains have similar responses to pleasure cues as the brains of alcoholics or drug addicts.

And as for the research, it only points to addicts' addictions triggering the similar pleasurable responses. Almost anything can be consumed up to the point that it becomes "too much of a good thing," but that's no reason to demand the proprietor (such as it were) control the end user's actions. But that's what McLaren does.

First, she offers up her own comparably pristine past as a shocking contrast to today's routine debasement.

While my generation learned to do sex by reading the dirty bits of Sweet Valley High novels and fumbling around sweatily in our parent’s basements, this generation will have learned to do sex by watching semi-violent six-ways involving hairy men and vajazzled strippers squealing on dirty linoleum floors.

Look at the language McLaren uses. There's more to her advocacy than a concern for the young men and women of the world. Her sense of shame has been violated by proxy and she's projecting it all over the Globe and Mail's editorial pages. "Hairy." "Dirty." "Squealing." "Six-ways." [??]

That's followed by this sentence, which is extremely jarring in its cognizant dissonance.

[T]he solution is surprisingly simple: The Internet is public space and we need to police it. We built it. We own it. It’s where we live and where our kids are growing up. We should be applying the same standards of decency to the Internet as we do anywhere else.

This sounds like a plea for personal responsibility and more attentive parenting. It's your house and your internet. Police it as you see fit. Use any number of third-party products to filter content if you need to (not that they'll work any better than those pushed by governments). Apply your preferred "standards of decency" to your actions and those of your children.

That's what it sounds like. But it isn't.

No, this problem can't be solved by personal actions. It needs to be forced on those who provide the connection. By the government.

In the U.K., Prime Minister David Cameron recently strong-armed the major Internet service providers into applying automatic porn filters to all mobile and broadband connections in the country... The service providers resisted heavily at first, claiming such controls were a matter of parental responsibility and tantamount to censorship, but after the government made it clear it would legislate if necessary, the ISPs relented. Unsurprisingly, the move has proved hugely popular, particularly among parents.

First, she presents the ISPs "relenting" as if it were some sort of equitable compromise rather than the only response that would prevent further government meddling. What was "strong-armed" into place was preferable to the amount of damage that could conceivably be done by a handful of legislators operating under the influence of moral panic.

Second, it is not hugely popular. It just is. The "mandatory" is always more "popular" than the truly optional. Add to this the additonal (if minor) hurdle of opting out of "voluntary" internet filtering. When you make something "opt out," most people will take the path of least resistance and go with the pre-selected choice: "opt in." Something strong-armed into pseudo-policy by a determined government is never "popular." It takes a very special kind of mind (and predisposition) to portray it that way.

McLaren wraps up her post by strongly suggesting Canadian ISPs be given the same mandate: filter or else. Make Canada every bit as ineffectively censorious as the UK, because Mehmet Oz, "porn-induced erectile dysfunction" internet circle jerks, and the "pornification of our children" demand it. (Yes. Actual quote.) But also do it to rid McLaren's Canada of the ultimate, unspeakable obscenities: "dirty floors," "hairy men" and "squealing porn stars."

Nearly one in five of the most visited sites on the internet are being blocked by the adult content filters installed on Britain's broadband and mobile networks.

A Porsche car dealership, two feminist websites, a blog on the Syrian War and the Guido Fawkes political site are among the domains that have fallen foul of the recently installed filters.

The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for digital rights, surveyed the 100,000 most popular sites as ranked by digital marketing research firm Alexa, and found that 19,000 of them were blocked by at least one fixed line or mobile internet service provider.

By the end of 2014, every internet user in the UK will have the opportunity to browse the truncated web, with porn and other assorted nastiness blocked by default. Users will have the opportunity to opt out (oddly by "opting in" to an uncensored web) or, if they really want the ultimate in sanitzation, flip further switches to filter out even more content.

So, while the UK works hard to keep porn and piracy blocked, the blocking of actual technical threats (malware, phishing, etc.) to users' devices still remains completely optional and, in most cases, unimplemented. Compliance with the government's wishes has basically disappeared a full fifth of the most popular sites on the internet, of which pornography only contributes 4% of the total.

Torrentfreak, a site that doesn't have anything (directly) to do with file sharing or porn, reported being blocked (a situation that was straightened out once the BBC got involved). Numerous other false positives are sure to be uncovered in the coming weeks by the Open Rights Group web blocking test, which runs submitted URLs through a variety of ISPs and returns blocked/unblocked results.

As was pointed out repeatedly when Cameron began pressing the issue, what's being asked of ISPs is both censorious and impossible. False positives were a foregone conclusion, as was the fact that objectionable content would still sneak past filters. While ISPs are generally willing to investigate incorrect blocking, there's only so many employees they can throw at the problem. ORG's investigation turned up 19,000 sites being incorrectly blocked, and if each is subject to its own investigation at every ISP that's blocked them, it will be a long time before the situation is corrected. In the meantime, more sites will find themselves snagged on filters meant to stop other content.

One of the other problematic aspects is that the filtering system is actively being made worse in order to service a few choice industries. Adding corporate pressure to an already terrible idea is a recipe for full-blown disaster.

It appears TalkTalk (the service provider with the most restrictive filters) blocked it at some point in the last few days but is entirely cool with it for the time being. (The time listed seems to coincide with the release of this post [which has the word "sex" in its title] or possibly this slightly earlier one [which deals with Tor].)

from the because-that's-not-even-remotely-true dept

I'm not sure what it is about net neutrality that brings out absolutely insane arguments that make no sense, but it certainly seems to happen with annoying frequency. The latest is Rep. Darrell Issa taking a few words from a statement by leading net neutrality advocate, professor Tim Wu, and claiming that it means net neutrality could end porn online.

Issa has carved out a position for himself at times as a defender of the internet and innovation on the Republican side of the aisle. He was a key player in stopping SOPA, and has also been quite important in pushing back against USTR secrecy in questionable trade deals and in making sure you can actually rip your DVDs. He was also among those trying to dig into the ridiculous prosecution of Aaron Swartz. That said, he's also made some serious missteps when it comes to tech policy. He supported an Elsevier-backed bill that would have cut off open access policies. He's been a bit wishy-washy on NSA stuff as well, though more recently has generally sided more with protecting privacy.

Many of those positions have been ones that don't have a particularly partisan bent (sometimes going against the prevailing view in the party). But, when it comes to net neutrality, he's toeing the standard partisan line. As we've noted all too often, about a decade ago, net neutrality suddenly became a "partisan" issue with Republicans against it and Democrats for it -- and since then it's been almost impossible to have a real policy debate about it that doesn't immediately descend into partisan talking points that have little basis in reality. Unfortunately, it appears that rather than actually dig into the issues here, as he's done in the past on other issues, Issa chose to take the easy grandstanding way out on this one. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing asking if antitrust law would be more effective in protecting consumers and innovation online. Now I've already gone on record in arguing that the FTC may be a good place to look to protect net neutrality, but less from the antitrust angle than the "actually delivering what you sold customers" angle.

Issa: Professor Wu. I really appreciate your being here. I think you've given us the appropriate characterization of the true reason for net neutrality. You said it was 'social media police, speech policy, political policy.' You used words including 'control.' All of that, you did voluntarily here, right?

Wu: *Silence* (I assume he nods)

Issa: So, what you're saying, in effect, is, if the FCC gets ahold of this, we can go back to the Leave it to Beaver times. Times in which two married adults had to be in twin beds in order to get passed the social norms of the day. Times in which, even today, Bill Maher, who I often disagree with, can't be on broadcast because the FCC won't let him on because he uses the F-bomb too often. Times in which complaints are being considered today, and in the last year, against Two and A Half Men, because they're too sexually explicit. This is the FCC's role. They're a regulatory policy entity that actually does limit free speech, carefully question moral norms and the like. Do you have any way to tell me that's not true after your opening statement?

Wu: What I'm trying to suggest...

Issa: Please answer the question. Then you can get to your suggestion.

Wu: I'm suggesting that if the antitrust agencies overtake the...

Issa: No, no. You were telling me the good reasons for the FCC to have this kind of control. And I have countered with, you're absolutely right. Everything you said about social policy, speech, political. These are things the FCC has controlled over the airwaves for my entire life.

From there he turns to a former FCC commissioner and asks a leading (and misleading) question about FCC regulations on speech.

So, here's the thing: Issa is correct in pointing out that the FCC has a mandate in regulating "indecency" over broadcast spectrum. Many people -- including us -- have been quite critical of the FCC's attempts to "fight indecency" on broadcast TV, and have been happy when the courts have curtailed its ability to do so. However, that issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality. The FCC has this (already questionable) mandate over regulating indecency solely on broadcast (not cable or satellite) TV under the theory that the spectrum used for broadcast TV is scarce and owned by the US government who then gave it out to the networks (for free) in exchange for promising to use it to broadcast good, wholesome content.

None of that says anything about what's happening on the internet, which is not broadcast TV in any way, shape or form. Even more ridiculous is that it's quite clear that if you actually read Tim Wu's opening statement, he's saying the exact opposite of what Issa implies he's saying. Issa simply cherry picked a few words, completely out of context, and did this grandstanding show of pretending Wu said the FCC would be regulating speech. Wu, instead, pointed out that the FCC has a role here in making sure the internet stays open for the purpose of keeping open the marketplace of ideas.

There is, in our times, an
intimate relationship between Internet policy, free speech and the political
process. At the risk of stating the obvious, the Internet now serves as an
incredibly important platform for both political and non-political speech of
every possible description. In this respect, it probably comes closer than any
other speech technology to creating Oliver Wendell Holmes’ vision of a
marketplace of ideas. The Internet has also served as the launching pad for
numerous political movements and campaigns, and has tended to provide a
place for outsider parties and candidates to challenge the establishment.

When we understand the Internet as a speech and political platform, it
is clear that protecting the open Internet – dealing with matters like
discrimination as between competing forms of content – has obvious
implications for both free speech and the political process. You might say
that to protect the open Internet is much the same thing as protecting the
United States as an open society.

So Wu is making the point that by not allowing discrimination and favoritism online, we better guarantee a marketplace of ideas and open and free communications online. And Issa took a few words out of that, and pretends that it means the FCC would suddenly, magically, get the power to not just regulate speech online, but to try to censor the internet to not just get rid of porn, but bring us back to the Leave it to Beaver days? Issa, later in the talk tries to argue that given that the FCC has the power to regulate speech on broadcast TV it will obviously, automatically, seek to expand that power to new realms. This, despite absolutely no evidence that the FCC has any interest in doing that. Yes, when (Republican) Kevin Martin was in charge of the FCC, he suddenly was much more interested in enforcing the indecency stuff, but no one has realistically sought to expand the FCC's charge over indecency beyond over the air broadcast TV, and there's nothing in the discussion of net neutrality even close to suggesting that anyone will move in that direction. Again, if anything, guaranteeing net neutrality would do the exact opposite in making it clear that no one can regulate what content has access and what does not.

Admittedly, Wu did not handle himself very well. Right after Issa tells him not to suggest something, to immediately repeat that phrase was a bad idea -- and later on he makes the cardinal sin in a Congressional hearing of trying to interrupt Issa and speak when no question was asked of him. I understand why he did it, but that's generally considered a huge faux pas in Congressional hearings. Issa then slaps him down for trampling on his "time" which is kind of amusing, since he was just bitching about how the government shouldn't get involved in stifling speech, but then actively seeks to not let Wu talk.

Anyway, Issa tries to drive home his suggestion that the FCC might try to ban porn online, with a massively convoluted question that is both wrong and misleading:

Issa: In my 14 years, the one thing that I have noticed is that we like to "harmonize" things. So, Commissioner Wright and Commissioner McDowell, do you have any question that if the FCC takes full net neutrality authority, if you will, that the FCC, by definition, will tend to want to harmonize other spectrum such as broadcast, and its limited cable role, with the internet. In other words, the rules of the road for broadcast, that have given us not having things on broadcast inevitably would be applied, at least in some part, to the internet. Maybe similarly to how we regulate cable to only go so far. So I'm just going to give you a simple question: You can't put what some people consider pornography on broadcast television, can you?

McDowell: No.

Issa: And it's extremely limited as to what can be on cable? It cannot be a free for all.

McDowell: It can't be obscene. It's a different constitutional standard.

Issa: Right. But, on the internet today, it is limited only to criminal acts? Is that correct? You can put anything you want on the internet, so long as it's not a crime. Is that correct?

McDowell: Correct.

Issa: And if it is a crime, then law enforcement regulates it?

McDowell: Correct.

Except, no, not correct. At least not the implication here. The FCC has the (yes, questionable) mandate that lets it fight against indecency on broadcast TV. The claims about its role concerning cable TV are quite limited to almost non-existent. When McDowell points out that things on cable can't be obscene, that's also the existing standard for the internet as well. That is, when Issa says it can't be "criminal" and that "law enforcement" will take care of criminal issues, that's the same thing as talking about "obscene" content on cable TV, which the FCC has no real mandate over. The Supreme Court has long ruled that obscenity isn't protected speech -- and whether or not you agree with that, that's the rule. And that applies equally on cable TV and the internet. Yes, there are a few specific parts of the law that specifically call out subscription TV for not being able to show obscene material, but it's still based on the basic laws around obscenity.

And, nothing in any of the net neutrality stuff has anything to do with any of that. At all. Which McDowell could have explained, and sort of hinted at with his "different constitutional standard," but it goes beyond that. Because there is nothing in the debate that has anything to do with the FCC trying to keep anything offline. In fact, throughout all of this, it's been abundantly clear that the focus is on trying to make sure that there are no restrictions on content, rather than adding restrictions. The problem is that people (led by the telcos) are deliberately trying to conflate regulating the infrastructure layer with the content layer, in a sad and desperate attempt to block these rules that would serve only to stop broadband companies from trying to set up extra toll booths online.

Also, note the ridiculousness of the (mis)leading line of questions. Issa appears to set up a question about the likelihood of the FCC expanding or "harmonizing" efforts to censor content, even asking that specific question but never letting anyone answer it, and then completing the very same question with a much more mild question about whether or not you can put porn on broadcast TV. It's a pretty standard political trick. You start out by asking the question you really want to imply, but never let anyone answer it. You follow up instead with an easy "yes/no" question, thereby implying to the public that the answer to the first question was also an easy "yes."

Issa then turns back to Wu, though again fails to let him talk:

Issa: Okay, Professor Wu, I'll give you the last word. Do you see any inconsistency with exactly that? Because you're talking about -- in your statement -- about speech policy, social policy, control. Isn't that part of the concern that the American people should have, that much of what they see on the internet could be regulated out of existence?

Wu: Net neutrality protects the internet as a platform for an incredible diversity of speech. We've had net neutrality rules, de facto, for the past 20 years. We've had an incredible outpouring of speech from all across the political spectrum. And I'm suggesting that if we maintain...

Issa: Professor! Professor, your own words indict you.

Issa then moves on to a different question about defining the relevant market in antitrust for competition, leading Rep. Hank Johnson to jump in and ask if he could let Tim Wu actually answer the original question. Issa claims that Wu went off topic and thus the time goes back to being Issa's. He also suggests that Wu failed to be "succinct" in answering his questions, though as far as I can tell, at no point does Wu even get 3 full sentences in any where without Issa interrupting or talking over him.

Look, I'm just as concerned about the FCC overregulating speech with things around "indecency" on broadcast channels. And I have my concerns about the Supreme Court's rulings on "obscenity" and how regulating against it is not a First Amendment issue. But none of that has anything to do with net neutrality. And nothing in this debate even remotely touches on the question of the FCC suddenly taking porn off the internet or making it like Leave it to Beaver. As Issa's colleague, Rep. Jared Polis noted a few years back in a hearing on SOPA (at which Issa was also present,) the internet is for porn (placing the lyrics to the classic Avenue Q in the Congressional record). And that's not going to change any time soon.

In fact, it could reasonably be argued that without more explicit recognition for net neutrality, the big broadband providers are more likely to try to cordon off internet porn into "premium" parts of the internet. Thus, if Issa is really fighting for more porn on the internet, he might want to listen more closely to what Wu is actually saying, rather than trotting out a highly misleading attack on Wu.

from the shakedown dept

We've written about porn copyright troll Malibu Media a bunch of times in the past, including noting late last year that it had filed over 1,100 copyright lawsuits in 2013 alone. Many who follow copyright trolling have noted that Malibu Media's practices (and those of the lawyers who represent it) may be much worse than even Prenda, who has become synonymous with questionable copyright trolling practices. The New Yorker has written up a profile of Malibu Media and its copyright trolling, generously referring to the company as an "erotica" website.

Matthew Sag, who has written up an empirical study on copyright trolling, with lots of data, notes that Malibu Media alone is swamping the court system with lawsuits. Of 872 copyright claims filed in the first quarter of 2014, 343 of them were from Malibu Media. Sag also recently updated his chart showing different types of copyright lawsuits, from "regular" copyright lawsuits, those against "porn John Does" and "other John Does." The "red" sections for "porn John Does" is basically almost entirely Malibu Media at this point (back in 2011 and 2012, many were Prenda).

Oh, and if you're wondering about the bump from 2004 to 2007, much of that was back when the RIAA decided to sue thousands of music fans for file sharing music. That strategy turned out to be a disaster, but the RIAA, in many ways, wasn't quite as bad as the trolls. The RIAA was on a moral mission -- it never cared about squeezing money out of people. Malibu Media, on the other hand, is all about the trolling: using the court system as part of a shakedown system to scare people into settling. The New Yorker article only hints at how this is not a legal strategy, but rather a business model, to use the fear of the judicial system to get tons of people to just pay up.

from the which-of-them-is-more-dirty? dept

Porn. It's what the internet is for, as they say. Also, it's very hard for some people to avoid. Entire governments, too. But what about the little people with big parts that make all this wonderfully ubiquitous smut possible? It's easy to forget about the hard (ahem) working individuals that make these small businesses and big industry spurt out their wares like (insert grossest applicable analogy here). And now it's apparently difficult for those mostly-young laborers to get paid, since some banks seem to have adopted a rather convenient moral code when it comes to who can open accounts with their institutions.

Chase Bank has reportedly sent out letters to hundreds of porn stars notifying them that their accounts would be closed on May 11. Teagan Presley confirmed to XBIZ that her personal account was one of the ones shut down.

“I got a letter and it was like please cancel all transactions, please fix your automatic pay account and make sure everything’s taken care of by May 11,” Presley told XBIZ. “I called them and they told me that because I am, I guess, public and am recognizable in the adult business, they’re closing my account. Even though I don’t use my account, it’s my personal account that I’ve had since I was 18, when it was Washington Mutual before Chase bought them out.”

In other words, Chase Bank is slutshaming adult performers and closing their personal accounts, whether those accounts are associated with the adult businesses in question or not. It's apparently something of a morality play. That may find some support with the more conservative and/or religious factions in America, but I'd say it's an interesting move by the same bank that has, among other transgressions: financed the Nazis, engaged in fictitious trades, wrongfully foreclosed on active US soldiers, financed other Nazis, bankrupted American towns through changes in their debt-rate programs, violated the Sherman Act, refused to return funds to Jewish families that were victims of those same Nazis they financed, lied to people trying to finance automobiles, and financed the damned Nazis. To invoke a morality clause with all of that on one's resume would be a bit like having Donald Sterling fire an employee for being racist.

Unfortunately, because the banking industry appears to have rules all its own, it's unclear whether anything can be done about this kind of blatant discriminatory policy.

Adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi told XBIZ that Chase and other banks have “notoriously closed adult accounts or people in the industry’s accounts, but nothing like this.”

Whether legal recourse for those whose accounts were nixed is plausible — and, if so, which path is optimal — remains unclear, given that the situation is novel and that banks generally have the prerogative to do business with who they choose (yes, that often means flagrant discrimination).

And, yes, private businesses can choose with whom they do business, but I would suggest that if Chase wants to apply morality to their business, we should as well. That would mean they need to be paying far greater repercussions for their transgressions than the wrist-slapping they've experienced thus far.

from the to-say-the-filing-is-'problematic'-would-be-to-destroy-the-word-'und dept

Chris Sevier, the Nashville attorney* who sued Apple back in July for failing to prevent him from accessing porn on his iPhone (citing unfair competition and breach of marital contract -- apparently, Mrs. Sevier can't keep up with the seductive wiles of thousands of interchangeable "21-year-old porn stars"), has decided to return to the public eye with another baffling legal filing. This time, Sevier is targeting A&E for cutting ties with Duck Dynasty figurehead Phil Robertson** over his anti-gay remarks delivered earlier this month.

* The term "attorney" is used loosely here. As a whip smart and deadly handsome commenter pointed out back in July, Sevier's license to practice law has been temporarily revoked and placed on "disability inactive status," which basically means the court finds him (at this point) too mentally incompetent to represent others in the legal arena.

** Despite Robertson's name being all over the news and Sevier a self-avowed "member" of Robertson's "church," Sevier misspells his name as "Roberson" dozens of times throughout the filing.

Sevier's 92-page filing is a heavily-illustrated half-rant that seeks injunctive relief for Chris Sevier, who feels he too will be "unfairly discriminated against" (like Phil Robertson) because of his religious beliefs. (Obviously, he can't represent Robertson, what with being short both Robertson's permission and a license to practice law in Tennessee.) For added fun, Sevier also lists GLAAD, Wilson Cruz (actor and member of GLAAD) and President Barack Obama as defendants. [All misspellings and grammatical errors are from the original.]

Like Mr. Roberson, I have a continuing economic expectation with the Defendants, and I now because of their reckless decision without due process, I myself directly have the reasonable apprehension of being discriminated against under the "chilling effect doctrine." This fear of inevitable discrimination for being a Christian, who ardently opposes something as despicable as homosexual conduct gives rise to a claim under 28 U.S.C. 2201 against the Defendants, who are obviously furthering the "pro-gay" agenda through their "symbolic" and "joint" relationship with the Obama administration, which has reduced itself to the poster child of poor leadership. It was not by accident that President Obama felt "compelled" to inject himself in this controversy after the fact to try to reverse the damage caused by his backfiring social agenda that blatantly affronts the will of God.

Sevier's one saving grace is that he doesn't approach this as a First Amendment issue like many others have. Instead, he presents A&E's actions as a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act -- discrimination based on religion.

In response, A&E took adverse administration action against him without due process, discriminating against him, and members of our organization for beliefs that we hold as sacred and self-evident knowing that Mr. Robertson legally classifies as a "public figure." A&E took these measures in step to further a political initiative acting under the color of a state actor to send a chilling effect to Christians to further a "hot button" political matter. It was not by accident that President Obama involved himself directly in this matter, speaking out against after the fact that engaged in per se discrimination and "hypocrisy."

Now, part of Sevier's argument hinges on Obama's supposed involvement in this debacle. According to him, Obama's choice to "inject" himself into this debate makes A&E a "state actor," and as such, its actions are unconstitutional. The only problem with this -- and it's a major problem -- is that this supposed "injection" never happened. Sevier quotes an entire article he found online, supposedly featuring President Obama calling for Phil Robertson's reinstatement. (A screenshot of this article can be found in the attached exhibits, half of which have been attached upside down.)

On December 19, 2013, Calling suspension of 'Duck Dynasty' patriarch Phil Robertson "a chilling crackdown on free speech in an artistic community that should value individual expression," President Barack Obama urged the Arts Entertainment network to reinstate Robertson immediately, and to apologize for its "hypocrisy." (see exhibit)

President Obama stated: "There are no bigger fans of Duck Dynasty than Michele and me. . . .and while I have my disagreements with Mr. Robertson's Views on homosexuality, as expressed in GQ magazine, I'll defend with my last breath Robertson's right to express those views…"

The significance of President Obama's involvement in this controversy shows that under the current political climate in this country was acting under the color of state action when it took adverse administrative action against Mr. Roberson without due process.

Except that this NEVER HAPPENED.

Once the court addresses this issue, Sevier's case will be gutted. Not that it isn't already pretty much just a shell already, seeing as Sevier is seeking an injunction to ensure that he won't be persecuted in the future for his religious beliefs. (Which aren't really "religious beliefs" as much as they are personal beliefs being propped up by convenient pull quotes from the Bible…)

Sevier's rambling wreck of a lawsuit stumps for Rick Santorum's Christian TV network, calls pro-gay rights activism racism, name drops both Bill Maher and Ke$ha, and uses his military career as a flag-waving place to make logical leaps from.

It is also been the Obama administrations overt policies to persecution Christians. As a combat Army Officer and member of the United States Judge Advocate Core, who served in an 06 capacity (Full Bird Colonel*) during operation Iraqi Freedom, I can personally attest to seeing Obama's pro-gay-self-justification activity play out first-hand. The repeal of "don't ask don't tell" and making "proselytizing illegal" in the military were just the first steps in the quest to convert America from a "Christian nation" into a "gay one," elevating mans Ways over God's.

* Sevier's attached filing seeking reinstatement directly contradicts this claim of "bird colonel" rank, pointing out that he topped out at First Lieutenant.

So, in turning to a secular rock band other than* ZZ top, Death Cab's side project, The Postal Service, release a single "Such Great Heights." The lyrics read, "God himself did make us into corresponding shapes, like puzzel pieces from the clay." One does not have to have much in the way of common sense to use their own two eyes and see that a males body parts correspond with a females.As these lyrics indicate, God obvious created "the round peg to go into the round hole" so to speak. When these corresponding shapes are put together, such a union has the potential to be life giving, not only metaphysically, nerochemically, emotionally, socially, but literally.

* Well, if we must…

compares homosexuals to a variety of human debris, including drug addicts and *gasp* skate boarders...

The Pope encouraged the body of Christ to welcome homosexuals into the church in the same Way that the church is expressly commanded in the Bible to embrace prisoners, prostitutes, drug addicts, thieves, rabble rousers, adulterers, skate boarders, EDM singers, porn addicts, rednecks, and all other types.

points out how A&E and Obama are almost literally Hitler...

The only way to stop the Christians is to persecute and them suppress them into silence. That is what Himmler planned to do and that is precisely what did when it took unilateral adverse action against brother Robertson. This is also exactly what the Obama Administration's agenda has set out to accomplish in a direct and round about way*…

* 'direct and round about way?'

uses made-up words as scientific evidence…

This does not leave room for the idea that members of the same sex should be molesting each other, which serves to not only deplete oxytosen levels but causes them to miss out on a prospective life giving relationship that with the potential of being marked with God's favor.

and points out that mainstream America has no interest in ungodly, gay-loving TV stars.

The Defendants needs to take note of the fact that nobody wants to buy an American Hoggers T-shirt. Upon information and belief, there is not a single person in the Universe wearing the "Kardasian family" t-shirt. But the merchandise in stores like Walmart that associate with the Roberson family continues to fly off the selves. This is because we are spiritual beings, and millions of Americans connect with the Roberson family and what they represent.

Sevier also grants himself multiple opportunities to fully explore his persecution complex:

It should be abundantly clear to this Court by now given other controversies I have been involved in that I am both a whistle blower and no strange to persecution for my religious beliefs. [As the Court has seen in pre-existing lawsuits, I have received actual death threats, after demanding that Apple and Hewlett-Packard comply with the laws that prohibit the selling of obscene pornography to minors.]

He also trots out some advanced sexual theory that puts gay sex in the same neighborhood as bestiality while proposing that people can switch teams by simply having orgasms with the opposite sex. (And leaves everyone unsatisfied by dangling an unclosed bracket...)

Homosexual men and women can become conditioned to desire members of the opposite sex because of classic conditioning that is reinforced by orgasm through sexual encounter with the member of the same sex. This principle could apply to beastiality as well, if one were to use a animal as a sex object. [There are studies cases of men who prefer a blow up dolls to a real woman because they get conditioned to having intercourse with a blow up doll - causing them to miss out on a superior prospective life giving relationship with a tangible member of the opposite sex…

In June of 2013, I filed a lawsuit against Hewlett Packard and Apple to make them comply with the laws that prohibit retailers from selling smut to minors that can be found on the books of every state in our union for good cause. That lawsuit made international news for good reason. The evidence* shows that partly in response to the discussion that I started, the British Prime Minister began championing my proposed solutions to make it harder to access pornography online, which would push our world back towards innocence. The evidence demonstrates through studies, like those released by the Withspoon Institute, that online pornography is proliferating the demand side of sex trafficking, child pornography, and reaping havoc** on intimacy, marriages, and the quality of life for millions of Americans.

* You keep using that word… ** As they sew, so shall they reap...

The insanity doesn't stop with the complaint, though. As an added bonus, Sevier has attached a petition to have his license reinstated -- a petition that leaves no bridge unburnt.

I am not in the mood to be violated any long by Tennessee Supreme Court justices, who are not only past their prime for practicing law in terms of their age and career wise, but who have acted immorally by ratifying discrimination against a combat veteran, engaged in libel per se, and implicated themselves in abuse of process and malicious prosecution…

Since the Tennessee Supreme Court members are literally acting like children, I have the right to expose you as such to the public so that you will not be re-elected to the bench. The Tennessee Supreme Court has demonstrated contempt for service members and for HIPPA in these matters. Anyone with common sense can see that I have been completely violated by the Tennessee Supreme Court's actions given the pending lawsuit against the Board members and the Tennessee Supreme Court's acknowledgement that it reached its decision on medical records that were confidential...

To be fair, Sevier doesn't seem to have much interest (or much hope) of being reinstated. This may be mostly sour grapes, though. He seems mainly interested in getting the final word.

I want to be able to say that I deactivated my TN law license out of protest because I do not want to have anything to do with such a dishonorable entity. I also want my status switch to remove the public stigma that the TNSC helped create in conjunction John Rich* that I am a "mentally ill stalker," so that my efforts to fight the hell out sex trafficking and child porn will not be interfered with, given the pending Apple/HP lawsuit in Federal Court.

Sevier also threatens the court with the combined weight of his recording industry connections, something that will undoubtedly force it to continue ignoring his requests.

[I] have worked in the music business. I will use every resource I have in that industry to bring accountability to the individuals on the bench making this decision through the Court of public opinion* You'll find yourselves outmatched here.* I'll even humbly ask Rolling Stone Magazine to cover these matters, along with my simultaneous musical developments in EMD** (that's electronic dance music for those who are too out of touch to know)... Additionally, I'll ask these musical publications to keep track of my Apple lawsuit along with a serious of other ones that are bound to make international news once again. I am presenting a new kind of "rock star," one who not only makes music, but who lashes out publicly against people in positions of authority who elect to misuse it for personal reasons…

Normally, I have great respect for authority. It is a privilege to be submissive...***

Sevier points out early in his novel-length filing that he's going to use "layman's terms" in order to make everything abundantly clear to both the court and other readers. That's a nice thought, but I would imagine his use of layman's terms has more to do with a limited legal vocabulary than a desire to connect with the "common man." This is the same man who claimed in his lawsuit against Apple that he accidentally typed in "fuckbook" rather than "facebook," a finger fumble that led directly to his porn addiction -- an addiction that is totally the fault of Apple, HP… anyone else who isn't Chris Sevier.

Now, Sevier's worried that his religious anti-gay beliefs will keep him from successfully licensing his next album of "dubstep-electronic-trance-house-hardstep" songs to production companies like A&E or Disney. As a member of Robertson's church (more accurately described in his filing as being a member of Robertson's church's Facebook group), Sevier can only look forward to a future of gay marriage and declining income. And it's all Obama's fault.